Luke 16:1-8 describes a manager caught in a difficult ethical situation. I had previously read this parable dozens of times and never understood why it was in the Bible. It seems to be a story about an embezzler getting away with his crime. That, however, was a limitation in my understanding. There finally came a time when this parable made sense to me. I described that understanding in an earlier article published on my web site. In this article I re-examine the parable to now show how it illustrates the Kingdom.
First, this story is about relationships, not ethics. The thrust of this parable is that resolving the dilemma is achieved by 1) knowing your associates and 2) reaching alignment. The owner is proud and this solution is targeted at that trait. The merchants need profit to survive and this implementation meets their need. Project managers often find themselves caught in impossible political situations. Compromise often seems to be the only workable technique. But the way of the Kingdom is through alignment. It was only in my second effort at this parable that I learned that this is a parable about alignment.
If you are caught with a dilemma, ponder this parable. Parables are inductive. They encapsulate a paradigm - a technique. Add this technique to your tool kit and you will learn to appreciate it.
The First Exploration
When I first wrote about this parable I was attempting to apply a technique developed by Eliyahu M. Goldratt (Eliyahu M. Goldratt and Jeff Cox; The Goal; The North River Press; 2004; ISBN 0-88427-178-1). Goldratt believes that his tool can be applied to the analysis of nearly any problem. My goal was to test that tool on a problem that had perplexed me for many years. I chose the parable in Luke 16: 1-8 in which we are told that a dishonest manager is caught by the owner of the property and yet that dishonest manager finds a way to save his job.
This is my favorite parable primarily because it had utterly baffled me. Not only could I not understand why the story ended with the dishonest manager restored in status, but I also could not understand how this parable fits into Christian theology. I believe that Goldratt’s technique has helped me gain an understanding of this parable. And thus I would like to share that technique with you as it may prove of value.
The Evaporating Cloud technique begins with statements about a conflict of interests. It is a graphical technique as drawings provide a concise tool for focusing thought onto a topic. The graphic includes five boxes and five arrows. The basic outline for an evaporating cloud is shown below. The concept is to focus on the assumptions that hold this conflict in place and then find a way to alter one of those assumptions. That change will then dissipate the conflict. In other words, the goal is to find the change that will cause this cloud to evaporate.
The “objective” is a statement on which both parties agree. In essence, the “objective” defines a point at which all parties can reach alignment. It must be a realistic statement of their mutual goal. The “requirements” are the actions each party will take to get to the goal. The “prerequisites” are the statements that describe the conflict. There needs to be a logical, consistent progression from prerequisite to requirement to objective. Also, the prerequisites must show a diametric opposition.
The first step in the process is to properly define the objective, requirements and prerequisite. You can start anywhere, but the process only works if what you put down is accurate in all respects. As I read the parable I was confident that I understood the “prerequisites”. The diagram, below, includes my interpretation of the source of this conflict.
So far this is rather straightforward. The next step, however, is a bit more difficult. I tried the following arrangement and found that I could not substantiate this logic against the text in the parable.
The reason this cannot be an accurate description of the conflict is because this strategy actually amplifies the conflict. The parable tells us that the manager gave away more of the owner’s money. Continuing to spend money is not going to resolve this conflict. Thus I concluded that this diagram does not properly describe the nature of the conflict.
If the conflict does not revolve around money, then we need to try replacing that objective with something that can be resolved by the actions described in the parable. We could try power, prestige or authority. But the one that works the best is reputation. My hypothesis is that this conflict revolves around the perception the community has of each of these individuals. Consider the updated diagram shown below.
The next step in this process is to properly state the requirements that will lead from the prerequisites to the objective. The dishonest manager’s point of view is clear from the parable. The manager will loose his income (money). Also, note the phrase “I am ashamed to beg”. Here we see that perception or status is a core element in this conflict. The owner is in a similar predicament. It is not as much a problem that the dishonest manager spent his money as it is that this threatens the reputation of the owner. If the owner of an estate gets a reputation for allowing people to squander his money then the owner will appear incompetent. Gossip might offer various suggestions as to why this wealthy person would allow another to blatantly steal and none of what is suggested is going to enhance this person’s reputation. So the owner of this estate cannot allow the manager to tarnish his reputation by stealing. And thus we get to the diagram shown below.
Now that the conflict has been properly defined the next step in the evaporating cloud process is to search for a way to break one of the linkages that holds this conflict in place. Generally this is the hardest part of the process. In this case, however, we already know the solution. So what we need to do next is to understand how this solution broke this conflict. I suggest the following as a starting place:
The owner considers his reputation to be of more value than money. His reputation would have been damaged if he had allowed the manager to continue to spend his money recklessly. However, once the manager forfeited the owner’s right to collect on certain debts the situation changed. That action not only improved the reputation of the manager among his business associates, it also changed the community’s perception of the owner. Instead of viewing the owner as incompetent, the community now views the owner as beneficent. By allowing the community to think that the manager acted under the instructions of the owner, the owner has gained a reputation as kind and benevolent.
But why not fire the dishonest manager anyway? Because doing that would expose the fact that the owner had not authorized this benevolence. Firing the manager would cause the owner to loose the increased prestige he has gained and again raise questions regarding his competency to govern his affairs. Thus the owner is now tied to this solution and must allow the dishonest manager to continue.
I was satisfied that this technique allowed me to focus on the true nature of the resolution of this parable. But the reason Jesus used this parable is to teach. And I still did not understand how to apply this to the Christian life. The first solution to that problem was to recast this story as a description of roles. I proposed that the dishonest manager represents us. It would seem consistent with other parables to consider God as the owner, either as represented by the Father or the Son.
The choice then is whether we are to imitate the actions of the dishonest manager or do the opposite. For example, the parable in Luke 16: 19-31 describes a rich man that did not care for the poor while on earth and now asks for help from one of the poorest of the poor while suffering in Hell. Clearly we are to do the opposite of what that rich man did. While in Luke 15: 11-24 we are called to view ourselves as the prodigal son and turn back to our Father like that son did.
There is a decided conflict with Judaic values if Jesus is asking us to go and spend someone else’s money. Also, this manager is clearly self-serving and dishonest. This does not seem to be a role model for us to imitate. And that, I think is part of why this parable is so hard for people to adopt as a life goal. Rather than seeing ourselves as the dishonest manager we want to condemn him and do the opposite.
But what if Jesus is actually asking us to shrewdly spend His money? If we are benevolent with money that is not really ours will we gain a favorable reputation among the recipients of our benevolence? And, if all wealth is actually the property of our King, then do we not also spread the word of His benevolence by giving away what was never really ours in the first place?
And here is where this parable finally fit into the understanding of Christian theology that I had at that time. We are the trustees for our Lord’s estate. He wants us to shrewdly spend His estate to create benevolence. We will be called to account if we dishonestly take from His estate for our gain. We will be richly rewarded if we give His estate away in order to spread the word of His benevolence. Consider this now as a revised cloud diagram.
And with that I was satisfied. This parable made more sense to me and at last I could pretend like I knew how it fit into Christian theology. Goldratt’s evaporating cloud technique worked to bring new understanding. And then I went on to write:
“Our self-interest is in conflict with God’s goals. We can align ourselves with God’s goals and eliminate the conflict by shrewdly spending God’s wealth to make God’s name known throughout the community.”
I was happy with that answer. Now, however, I see that I knocked on the door of understanding, but I failed to enter and grasp the real meaning of this parable.
Another Tool
To go beyond this limited understanding, we need to first delve into the mechanism underneath Goldratt’s tool. In essence, Goldratt’s tool is a state transition diagram. What we describe are the beginning states for two positions or two people. Then we describe what it will be like when we are aligned. And finally we find the actions that are required to move us from our current state to alignment. The beauty of Goldratt’s tool is that we have complete flexibility in defining the states and the actions.
I have an alternative tool with predefined states and predefined actions. The elaborated version of the states and the interpretations I believe belong with each state is shown to the left.
Tranquil is the state we prefer because there is little conflict and it requires little effort on our part.
Conflict is the result of antagonism. Conflict only persists when we chose to ignore the pain we cause the other person.
Chaos is a state of being in which there is much conflict and much distress.
Transforming is a state we visit occasionally when we feel safe—in other words when there is little conflict. We only change when we sense there is a dissonance between our current environment and the result we want to reach. Teaching is an ideal way to create a transforming environment.
Compromise involves some antagonism to force a solution. It requires some listening to hear the other party but it allows us to block out those parts of the conversation that we choose not to resolve.
Smothering is a state in which you are surrounded by love and yet the person bestowing the love does not listen to your needs.
Aligned is the goal state when there is no conflict, we each understand each other completely and we are motivated to act because of our love for each other.
I trust that you already understand the terms antagonism, distracters and love. Dissonance is a communication that stirs us to action. In simple terms, dissonance is the stimulus and love is a reaction.
To move from tranquil to conflict all we need to do is increase the antagonism. To move from conflict to chaos we need to increase our understanding that things are not as they should be. To move from chaos to transforming we need to create a caring environment in which we actively listen and communicate.
The transition from tranquil to aligned is very difficult for people. Instead we need to transition first to transforming and then strive for alignment. And even that first step is difficult. Our human tendency is to react to dissonance with anger and move ourselves over to conflict. We see this natural progression when we look at the stages of team formation. The pathway typically taken in relationships is from the tranquil state where we form a new team, through the storming phase where we resolve our conflict and then to the norming stage where we work as a “normal” team. Alignment is seldom achieved and only lasts a few minutes at a time when it does occur. For a team this is called the performing stage. Some teams demonstrate alignment over a period of time. However, whenever one person leaves or someone else joins the team, then the team must go back to forming and start the progression over again.
The Dance
Humans move from state to state in a dance. We are part of a social web and each action influences the web of life. In general, we like to spend our time in the tranquil state because transformation is hard work and conflict is not pleasant. One day we will learn that the aligned state is the best state but today we are skeptics and today we feel the continual tugs of conflict interacting with our social web. Thus, the first step in this dance is for the owner, manager and merchants to all enter the tranquil state.
Next, the owner learns about the deception. I conjecture that he was out of town at the time because you would think that if he caught the manager stealing funds then he would quickly remove him to prevent further damage. That, however, does not happen. All we know at this point is that the owner has found out about the embezzlement and is in the process of forcing the manager to leave his position.
The next step in this dance is for the manager to move from tranquil to his new state. Clearly the manager is in conflict with the owner so antagonism is in play. Interestingly, he does not attempt to smooth over the situation. He does not confront the owner and try to bluff his way out of the situation. He does not offer a compromise. And, based upon the fact that his response to being caught stealing is that he goes ahead and steals some more, I think it is safe to assume he is not yet transformed. Thus I propose that the manager has a high level of conflict and a high level of dissonance and exits tranquil for chaos.
The next action that we read about is that the manager began cancelling the debts that the merchants owed to the owner. This is going to create dissonance in the merchants because this has never happened before. They are also going to interpret this as an act of love. We see behind the act and know that the manager is deceiving the owner and the merchants. Our perspective, however, is not important. From the perspective of the merchants, they have received a gift. They will be grateful. And with that they proceed through transformation and enter into alignment. They got there through deception, and yet, just as the manager planned, they are now so grateful to him that they will align their wills with his. They will repay his generosity with kindness when he is in need. The manager’s gambit worked and that is all the further that he had planned.
We, however, are social creatures. We feel the responses in our environment. Soon the owner learns about this new development. Let us conjecture for a moment that he had been out of town and on returning was greeted by merchant after merchant all thanking him and praising him for his generosity. This would certainly be dissonance and love. Combining dissonance and love moves the owner from conflict to transforming where his heart is changed.
Now, with a changed heart, the owner cancels the termination of the manager and thanks him for creating a situation where he, the owner, is the recipient of such overflowing love. This cancels the conflict that the manager was feeling while keeping dissonance high because this is not at all the result he, the manager, was expecting. The continued love emanating from the merchants interacts with the social web and then pulls both the owner and manager into alignment. All parties are then aligned in agreement that this is a situation they are all happy with. At that moment the Kingdom of God was within reach. Moments later it was gone again and everyone resumed their normal states of tranquility, conflict and chaos with occasions of transformation. But for those few minutes the Kingdom of God was tangible.
Here, then is the meaning of this parable:
If we, who practice deception are capable of creating situations where our wills are aligned, just think what we could do if we actually tried to succeed at this.